What are current Physicists' general positions on the Copenhagen Interpretation?

[LCSphysicist]

TL;DR

What is the general position of current physicist about the Copenhagen interpretation?

Actually, is not a doubt as a question, in which there is wrong or right. I just want to update myself with respect to the current physicists opinion about the Copenhagen interpretation of Bohr and Heisenberg. Summarizing, there is a consensus among the majority? In another words, there is still a discussion about the validity of this interpretation?

 

[PeterDonis]

there is a consensus among the majority?

There is no consensus about any QM interpretation. None of them is generally accepted by physicists as the "correct" one.

there is still a discussion about the validity of this interpretation?

There is still discussion about the validity of all QM interpretations.

 

[atyy]

The general view is to accept a Copenhagen-like operational interpretation of quantum mechanics as correct for all practical purposes. For example, the quantum mechanics textbooks of Landau and Lifshitz, Messiah, and Weinberg explicitly say that they use Copenhagen. The book "Operational Quantum Mechanics" by Paul Busch, Marian Grabowski and Pekka Lahti also states the operational viewpoint in its title.

At the same time, it is recognized by many that this orthodox interpretation has a "measurement problem" as it is gives special status to "measurements".
https://www.tau.ac.il/~quantum/Vaidman/IQM/BellAM.pdf
https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0209123
https://arxiv.org/abs/0712.0149

 

[Vanadium 50]

Summary:: Summarizing, there is a consensus among the majority?

Yes, but you're not going to like it. The consensus is not to worry too much about interpretations.

Every month there are maybe 1000-1500 articles in Phys Rev. (A, B, C...etc) This month, the number of papers that could possibly fall into the category of "interpretations" is...<drum roll, please>...one.

 

[RUTA]

I recommend this book https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/what-is-real-adam-becker/1126972739 . There is an Insight about it. You can read that first to decide :-)

 

[EPR]

Well... yes. In its minimalist operational form, it makes no claims about reality, so it carries no excess "baggage" like many other interpretations.

 

[kith]

I just want to update myself with respect to the current physicists opinion about the Copenhagen interpretation of Bohr and Heisenberg.

Note that when physicists use the term "Copenhagen interpretation" they are not necessarily talking about the actual historical position of Bohr or Heisenberg. The term has come to mean different loosely related ideas over time because there aren't any gold standard publications by the founders which rigorously define it. Also Bohr and Heisenberg haven't witnessed modern developments of QM (like decoherence). Attempts to connect the actual historical positions with modern QM aren't numerous (for an exception see Schlosshauer and Camilleri - The quantum-to-classical transition: Bohr’s doctrine of classical concepts, emergent classicality, and decoherence).